High Prices Still Hurting SSD Penetration in PC Market
Posted 06/24/09 at 08:11:24 AM by Paul Lilly
Following an influx of solid state drives aimed at both the high-end and mainstream market, for awhile there it looked like SSDs might actually give traditional hard drives a run for its money. But as it turns out, money remains the issue, and higher per gigabyte costs will keep SSDs from being a threat to HDDs in 2009, and the same will probably hold true in 2010, memory makers say.
In the mobile sector, SSDs will close out the year with only a 1-1.5 percent penetration rate, and less than 10 percent in the low-cost PC segment, according to data by DRAMeXchange.
But it's not all gloom and doom for SSDs. Memory makers say the upcoming transition to 30nm and lower nodes will push NAND flash prices down, while some remain hopeful that Windows 7 will change the storage landscape.
SSDs
Submitted by mesiah on Fri, 06/26/2009 - 2:05am
I Don't see SSDs becoming main stream for atleast a few years. Even if manufacturers are able to make them cheaper than traditional spinning media the price will still remain artificially higher, as it should. Right now the performance of most of these drives (the ones worth buying) is aimed at or above that of 10k rpm hdds. The user that buys a 10k rpm hdd is not the average user. I'm sure if you check market share for desktop systems you will see very little penetration from the 10k rpm units. With the rate prices are dropping and storage is increasing you will see 10k rpm units disapear from the desktop market sooner rather than later. By then I think there will be a more defined high end and low end for the SSD lineups, and we'll see prices low enough to really cut into traditional spinning media market share. In the long run, I really hope SSDs push hdds out of the market all together. Although both technologies eventually break down and fail, hdd failure is generally catastrophic, where sdd failur just means losing the ability to write to certain blocks while still being able to read from them.
yes
Submitted by darkliquids on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 2:23pm
price, capacity, dwindling performance over time, limited read write cycles....
do i not want a silent Ssd? if buying one wasn't like shooting myself in the foot i would have two by now.
The high price is the only
Submitted by popstop785 on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 8:56am
The high price is the only thing holding me back. In the state of the economy, a lower average price would be smart. I think so anyways.
Same here...I would have a
Submitted by vistageek on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 9:15am
Same here...I would have a bunch of those in a RAID 0 if they cost oh maybe...half as much or a little less. Right now I guess I will have to stick to my standerd HD's.
One problem I see is that
Submitted by skhills on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 8:54am
One problem I see is that even though SSD prices are going down/capacities are going up, capacities are not increasing as fast as I'm increasing my storage needs. With HD video and high res photography becoming popular, an SSD will only ever be a practical solution if I have a large secondary drive. I don't see the average user opting for an SSD with 1/10th the capacity if they are on a budget at all.
I so think the primary SSD, secondary HDD configuration with become popular with the enthusiast crowd, but that's just a sliver of the market.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






